Author
Topic: Fed employees - shutdown stories (Read 26119 times)

@sol, this takeover by party and merging of legislative and executive function is not unique to the US. I read a book on the development of the Canadian system, and early in our history an MP who was nominated to Cabinet would resign, a by-election would be called in his riding, and he would ask his constituents if they wanted a representative who would be serving 2 masters - his role as legislator and his role as part of the executive. Now it is a big deal to be in cabinet, resigning to ask your constituents what they think of it would be ludicrous.

We don't have budget crises like you do simply because of 2 things - 1 the PM whose party has a majority is in effect a dictator*, he has the House of Commons on his side (and yes that is a scary thought), but 2 a finance bill failing is "loss of confidence" and requires an election. So PMs tend to be fairly cautious about finance bills.

*You can find examples of unpopular legislation passed by any government, but the last HarperTM government, where he finally got a majority of seats (not overall votes), was particularly bad for this.

Mitch McConnell is a truly disgusting person, but I suspect that even though the Senate has previously passed bills to keep the gov't running when Trump wasn't having a tantrum, McConnell might not be able to find 18 or so GOP senators willing to explicitly and directly defy Trump now, even if he decided to bring a bill to the floor. But that might change as the consequences for business, travel, etc start to mount up.

McConnell might not be able to find 18 or so GOP senators willing to explicitly and directly defy Trump now, even if he decided to bring a bill to the floor.

Even if that's true, it's true for the same reason that McConnell is doing it. If 18 of the have collectively decided to put the goal of advancing the power of the republican party over their duty to the country or to their office, they are just as guilty as he is.

Is that really all it takes to subvert the constitution? 18 power hungry senators with a hard-on for racism?

I can give you a list of 50 different parts of the US government that are currently trying to figure out how to deal with this situation. There is not guide book. There is no law or precedent for how to deal with a shutdown that lasts more than a few days. The whole idea that Trump could keep the government "closed" for "years" is insane.

Congress could end this tomorrow with a 2/3 vote of both houses.

Not likely, but they do have that power.

Technically they'd have to wait until the president actually vetoes the bill to enact the legislation over his objections, and he has ten days (Sundays excluded) to decide whether or not to do so. They could get the ball rolling today by passing a bill from both houses, but would have to wait as much as another 11 days to actually end the shutdown unilaterally.

Ah, I had thought there was already something sent - but now I realize that was the last Congress and everything is reset.

Technically they'd have to wait until the president actually vetoes the bill to enact the legislation over his objections, and he has ten days (Sundays excluded) to decide whether or not to do so. They could get the ball rolling today by passing a bill from both houses, but would have to wait as much as another 11 days to actually end the shutdown unilaterally.

This is one route to ending the shutdown that I had not considered. Congress should already have the votes to end the shutdown over a veto, since both houses have passed the same bill by more than the required 2/3 majorities, so there's no need to negotiate any further at all. I've been focused on what a compromise would have to look like, but you're right that no compromise is necessary at all.

The problem with this solution is that it requires Mitch McConnell to allow the Senate to vote again, and he has declared that he won't allow the Senate to consider any bill that trump will veto regardless of what the senators want. So really, that makes it McConnell who is holding government hostage, by ceding congressional authority to trump who wants it held hostage.

This makes a mockery of the entire notion of representative government. If more than 2/3 of our ejected representatives in both houses want something, it's not supposed to matter what the president wants.

If 2/3 of the Senate really wants to, they should be able to unseat Mitch as majority leader as well. The mechanism is pretty deep into the weeds of Senate procedure and rules - but there has to be a usable mechanism to do so.

It we're really getting into the weeds though, constitutionally Mike Pence is the president of the senate, and the only reason Mitch McConnell has any power is that Pence delegates to the president pro tempore of the senate (currently Charles Grassley R-IA/Twitter) who in turn delegates to the majority leader.

So if we were to go full nuclear constitutional crisis, my understanding is that Pence could camp out in the senate and prevent anyone else from running things. However this is obviously not my area of expertise, so I'd welcome corrections from people who know more.

Wife took a job with the government in August so this is her first shutdown and being furloughed has been stressful for her.

She actually teared up a little the other night when she read an article that said that it could be down for 6 months or even a year.

She loves her job and has no idea what will happen if they stay shutdown that long.

We have an emergency fund but are trying not to touch it. We are trying to use all of the food in our house and making some pretty interesting meals LOL.

2 weeks into it now we have used all of our meat and are getting low on some food items so I emptied our change jug $162 in nickels, dimes and pennies $285 in dollar coins / quarters.

Everything other than the quarters and dollar coins went to coinstar and was exchanged for a Walmart gift card for no fee. The quarters and dollar coins will be used to buy other items as we need them.

horsepoor, are people being called back with pay? Or going from not-working without pay to working without pay?

I didn't get into it, but I would be shocked if they are being paid - they are in essence being switched over to the "essential" category that TSA, Coast Guard, etc. is in. The only advantage over staying on furlough is better guarantee of getting back pay.

It we're really getting into the weeds though, constitutionally Mike Pence is the president of the senate, and the only reason Mitch McConnell has any power is that Pence delegates to the president pro tempore of the senate (currently Charles Grassley R-IA/Twitter) who in turn delegates to the majority leader.

So if we were to go full nuclear constitutional crisis, my understanding is that Pence could camp out in the senate and prevent anyone else from running things. However this is obviously not my area of expertise, so I'd welcome corrections from people who know more.

In most systems, there is a mechanism for a majority (typically supermajority) to override/overrule the chair of the body. For example, any member may "Appeal to the Assembly" regarding the rule of the Chair.

horsepoor, are people being called back with pay? Or going from not-working without pay to working without pay?

I didn't get into it, but I would be shocked if they are being paid - they are in essence being switched over to the "essential" category that TSA, Coast Guard, etc. is in. The only advantage over staying on furlough is better guarantee of getting back pay.

People who are called back in (converted to “excepted”) will not be paid until there is an appropriation. This will likely happen to me at some point in the next week or so, for limited work on a specific project.

Related to the shutdown: a national conference of student veterans in FL was looking at empty job recruitment booths from federal departments because no one was there to represent the Fed gov't. Luckily a bunch of private companies like Microsoft were in attendance.

Although I understand and fully sympathize with federal workers caught in this mess, I like to hear about personal stories like this of citizens who are now being affected.

So we were out buying supplies to make chicken soup and other grocery items and getting pretty hungry and decided to stop in a sub shop on our way home and split a sandwich.

Wife ordered and paid in quarters and while explaining / apologizing for paying in quarters the manager said he understands and that he used to work as a fire fighter for the government and understands and offered her a job starting tomorrow.

She explained that she would not be able to give him a proper notice and would have to leave when the government started back up.

Again he said no problem and that he would just be happy to have someone that would show up on time even if for a few days.

The kindness of the manager boosted her spirits and she was pretty excited to have something new to do so today turned out to be a good day.

While it does not pay much it will take her mind off the shutdown and lift her spirits to have a place to go during the day.

Manager would probably have a good laugh looking at her resume listing all of her patents, inventions and publications :)

1 person in our group wants Trump to get the $5 billion - its just peanuts.

Yeah, there's a greater loss by the government continuing the shutdown than the cost of the wall. Some people have made comments about Mexico paying for it. Well, anyone could pay the $0 for the wall because the wall pays for itself because of all the money saved that would have been spent due to illegals crossing the border. The democrats need to get with the program.

Quote

My spouse and I are not too worried at this time (with the expectation of back pay). 3 or more months, or any amount of time without any back pay will really suck. I don't expect the shutdown to last that long...but I'd really love for our agency to run out of funding and get furloughed for a week or two and then get back pay. That would be an amazing free vacation!

That sounds like a federal worker friend of mine who is happy to get free extra vacation, knowing the pay will roll around later.

I did not say that Americans are ignorant, racist, xenophobic rubes, in facts I said that most Americans are not.

It's DreamFIRE who tried to suggest that this was most of us.

Sol, that is lie. I NEVER ever stated in any post that I ever thought most Americans were racists, ignorant, or xenophobic. In fact, I didn't even mention any of those words in any of my post. Further more, I do not believe there are many racists Americans, although people like yourself like to redefine it in your own eyes as a form of name-calling for anyone who doesn't agree with your liberal ideas.

I would never have brought up racism in this thread because it has nothing to do with the federal shutdown or border security. However, I am not surprised by the left resorting to the usual name-calling and talking points when anyone states an opposing view.

I'm happy to hear your wife's good news the_fixer and I could share the laugh imagining a resume like that being turned in to apply to work for a sandwich shop.

Given the incredibly tight labor market in many parts of the country, I wonder how many furloughed employees have pursued similar ways to stay busy and out of the house, or may if this continues much longer.

In fact, it looks like fewer Americans want a wall than actually voted for Trump. Apparently, even his own supporters don't want a wall.

Quote

I would never have brought up racism in this thread because it has nothing to do with the federal shutdown or border security.

Racism has EVERYTHING to do with the wall. It's the only reason the whole idea of the wall exists. I too want to secure our southern border, but a wall is a stupidly ineffective way to do that. The only utility in a wall is as a counterpoint to the Statue of Liberty, as an art piece that says "America hates immigrants". It won't actually do anything. It's a waste of money. It's only popular among people who fear the invading hordes of brown people will somehow harm our country, instead of help it like they always have.

(You do know that a wall is totally ineffective at slowing illegal immigration, right?)

I know that you "think" that or are trying to get us to "believe that you think" that because you actually support open borders like so many on the left do because it ultimately leads to more votes. However, if you understood the issue, you couldn't say that with a straight face, just like the head of border security stated. Even liberal politicians like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton have supported it. You're not suggesting they are xenophobic racists are you?

My support of the wall predates the election of Trump. This is something I've followed closely even before Obama was president. I'm not a Trump supporter and oppose him on the ACA, for example. I'm a free thinker and come to my own conclusions based on facts, not what a single party or the media tells me to think like so many others do.

Quote

Racism has EVERYTHING to do with the wall.

Racism has NOTHING to do with the wall. The wall knows no race, color, religion, sex.... it's there to secure our border against ANYONE unlawfully passing, just as the other deterrents. If I don't let you past a checkpoint because you're an illegal, that's no different. It's not about your race. The way you talk, you would think that you don't have a door on your house or that you leave it unlocked so that people can come and go as they please, because to have a door and lock it would mean you were racist. It's ridiculous. I bet that is not the case. I don't care how good your alarm system is and whether you sleep with one eye open to catch someone sneaking in, I bet you would still have a door and lock it.

A 2006 Congressional Research Service analysis of the southern border found that a fence in the San Diego sector, combined with an increase in agents and other resources, caused apprehensions in the sector to decline by 76 percent over a 12-year period from 1992 to 2004. In El Paso, a two-story corrugated metal fence first erected under the Bush administration reduced illegal border crossings in the area by 89 percent from 2006 to 2012, reports the New York Post.

What I see common between your posts and many of the comments from liberals is that the wall won't stop all illegal immigration by itself. That's a straw man argument, because no one ever suggested building a wall and eliminating all of the other mechanisms in place. In fact, it takes a multi-faceted approach to dealing with the problem, and these other methods need implemented and/or stepped up as well, in combination with the wall, which still is peanuts compared to doing nothing:

You mean because the government pensions are bailed out by tax hikes on workers, most who are not government workers themselves. The private industry can't take more of my tax dollars to pay their retirees the way the government does.

What has a $3.5 trillion unfunded liability, manually calculated on paper inside a Pennsylvania mountain, and costs taxpayers more money annually than the entire state budget of Florida? Answer: Federal employee pensions.

My spouse and I are not too worried at this time (with the expectation of back pay). 3 or more months, or any amount of time without any back pay will really suck. I don't expect the shutdown to last that long...but I'd really love for our agency to run out of funding and get furloughed for a week or two and then get back pay. That would be an amazing free vacation!

That sounds like a federal worker friend of mine who is happy to get free extra vacation, knowing the pay will roll around later.

Mostly anonymous message board -> therefore, I am going to give my honest feelings. If politicians throw temper tantrums and I get a free vacation, I'm happy for the free time. If I am essentially "out of work" without pay for that period, I am going to complain. I'm not going to try to pretend I'm some magnanimous self sacrificing person that abhors the idea of getting a paid vacation.

My spouse and I are not too worried at this time (with the expectation of back pay). 3 or more months, or any amount of time without any back pay will really suck. I don't expect the shutdown to last that long...but I'd really love for our agency to run out of funding and get furloughed for a week or two and then get back pay. That would be an amazing free vacation!

That sounds like a federal worker friend of mine who is happy to get free extra vacation, knowing the pay will roll around later.

Mostly anonymous message board -> therefore, I am going to give my honest feelings. If politicians throw temper tantrums and I get a free vacation, I'm happy for the free time. If I am essentially "out of work" without pay for that period, I am going to complain. I'm not going to try to pretend I'm some magnanimous self sacrificing person that abhors the idea of getting a paid vacation.

Yeah, I get it. If my company would give me extra paid vacation, I wouldn't complain, either. Of course, that would never happen in my line of work in the private sector.

You mean because the government pensions are bailed out by tax hikes on workers, most who are not government workers themselves. The private industry can't take more of my tax dollars to pay their retirees the way the government does.

What has a $3.5 trillion unfunded liability, manually calculated on paper inside a Pennsylvania mountain, and costs taxpayers more money annually than the entire state budget of Florida? Answer: Federal employee pensions.

yep, really rich people got huge tax cuts and you're moaning about middle class pensions. Your anger is definitely targeting the right group. We should be cutting taxes for really rich people and cutting pensions of some middle class fed employees. The rich need it more.

Worth noting with DreamFire's latest link: the URL is a "forbes.com/sites/" which is a service where forbes hosts non-editorially reviewed blogs by near random folks, and information hosted at /sites/ should not be attributed to the magazine itself.

You folks could probably tell this from the tone of the actual article if you clicked through, but in case anyone just saw the link and lent it credibility based solely on the connection to an actual news organization of some type.

(You do know that a wall is totally ineffective at slowing illegal immigration, right?)

I know that you "think" that or are trying to get us to "believe that you think" that because you actually support open borders like so many on the left do because it ultimately leads to more votes. However, if you understood the issue, you couldn't say that with a straight face, just like the head of border security stated. Even liberal politicians like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton have supported it. You're not suggesting they are xenophobic racists are you?

My support of the wall predates the election of Trump. This is something I've followed closely even before Obama was president. I'm not a Trump supporter and oppose him on the ACA, for example. I'm a free thinker and come to my own conclusions based on facts, not what a single party or the media tells me to think like so many others do.

Quote

Racism has EVERYTHING to do with the wall.

Racism has NOTHING to do with the wall. The wall knows no race, color, religion, sex.... it's there to secure our border against ANYONE unlawfully passing, just as the other deterrents. If I don't let you past a checkpoint because you're an illegal, that's no different. It's not about your race. The way you talk, you would think that you don't have a door on your house or that you leave it unlocked so that people can come and go as they please, because to have a door and lock it would mean you were racist. It's ridiculous. I bet that is not the case. I don't care how good your alarm system is and whether you sleep with one eye open to catch someone sneaking in, I bet you would still have a door and lock it.

A 2006 Congressional Research Service analysis of the southern border found that a fence in the San Diego sector, combined with an increase in agents and other resources, caused apprehensions in the sector to decline by 76 percent over a 12-year period from 1992 to 2004. In El Paso, a two-story corrugated metal fence first erected under the Bush administration reduced illegal border crossings in the area by 89 percent from 2006 to 2012, reports the New York Post.

What I see common between your posts and many of the comments from liberals is that the wall won't stop all illegal immigration by itself. That's a straw man argument, because no one ever suggested building a wall and eliminating all of the other mechanisms in place. In fact, it takes a multi-faceted approach to dealing with the problem, and these other methods need implemented and/or stepped up as well, in combination with the wall, which still is peanuts compared to doing nothing:

So i'm curious, where do you want the wall to go and how much more effective will it be than the barriers that are currently in place? Like what's the cost/benefit? Also I'm not going to look at the heritage foundation stuff, but does their cost of illegal immigration break it down by method of illegal immigration? Like what's the cost of illegal immigration over the southern border vs. visa overstays? Why is the focus on the southern border and not oceans, visas etc?

A 2006 Congressional Research Service analysis of the southern border found that a fence in the San Diego sector, combined with an increase in agents and other resources, caused apprehensions in the sector to decline by 76 percent over a 12-year period from 1992 to 2004. In El Paso, a two-story corrugated metal fence first erected under the Bush administration reduced illegal border crossings in the area by 89 percent from 2006 to 2012, reports the New York Post.

Nice theory, except that it is pretty well documented that immigration rates dropped dramatically during that period:

"The rate of Mexico-U.S. migration has declined precipitously in recent years. From 25 migrants per thousand in 2005, the annual international migration rate for Mexican men dropped to 7 per thousand by 2012. If sustained, this low migration rate is likely to have a profound effect on the ethnic and national-origin composition of the U.S. population. This study examines the origins of the migration decline using a nationally representative panel survey of Mexican households. The results support an explanation that attributes a large part of the decline to lower labor demand for Mexican immigrants in the United States. Decreases in labor demand in industrial sectors that employ a large percentage of Mexican-born workers, such as construction, are found to be strongly associated with lower rates of migration for Mexican men. Second, changes in migrant selectivity are also consistent with an economic explanation for the decline in international migration. The largest declines in migration occurred precisely among the demographic groups most affected by the Great Recession: namely, economically active young men with low education. Results from the statistical analysis also show that the reduction in labor demand in key sectors of the U.S. economy resulted in a more positive educational selectivity of young migrants."

You mean because the government pensions are bailed out by tax hikes on workers, most who are not government workers themselves. The private industry can't take more of my tax dollars to pay their retirees the way the government does.

What has a $3.5 trillion unfunded liability, manually calculated on paper inside a Pennsylvania mountain, and costs taxpayers more money annually than the entire state budget of Florida? Answer: Federal employee pensions.

yep, really rich people got huge tax cuts and you're moaning about middle class pensions. Your anger is definitely targeting the right group. We should be cutting taxes for really rich people and cutting pensions of some middle class fed employees. The rich need it more.

Just curious, but why do you think cutting pensions for fed employees will result in tax cuts for the rich. Is it possible to reduce the cost of both liberal and conservative spending so that we can eliminate the deficit and start to decrease our debt?

There are two things that scare me about the US today. The rising cost of healthcare and the national debt to GDP ratio. Personally I'm all for cutting down government spending on military, foreign aid, aid to illegal residents, cleaning up disability and medicaid for the people who actually need it, illuminate the war on drugs, free all incarcerated non violent drug offenders, etc.... All for the hope of decreasing our national debt.

If this so called wall decreases illegal immigration a few percent, and even more so with legitimate immigration reform. I guess it would pay for itself in the long run by decreasing spending elsewhere. If this is really true I am definitely for this wall, and not because I am racist, but because I am against illegal immigration and all unproductive wasteful spending. If this wall does nothing then I agree no need for the wall. I personally am still not sold on a benefit of a wall vs a large chain fence like the one built on 2011.

Racism has EVERYTHING to do with the wall. It's the only reason the whole idea of the wall exists. I too want to secure our southern border, but a wall is a stupidly ineffective way to do that. The only utility in a wall is as a counterpoint to the Statue of Liberty, as an art piece that says "America hates immigrants". It won't actually do anything. It's a waste of money. It's only popular among people who fear the invading hordes of brown people will somehow harm our country, instead of help it like they always have.

@sol, an American citizen can want something you don't and not be a racist xenophobe. I know it is hard to believe, but it is really true. You would be surprised how many Americans of Mexican decent believe a wall is a good idea. Are they racist as well?

A 2006 Congressional Research Service analysis of the southern border found that a fence in the San Diego sector, combined with an increase in agents and other resources, caused apprehensions in the sector to decline by 76 percent over a 12-year period from 1992 to 2004. In El Paso, a two-story corrugated metal fence first erected under the Bush administration reduced illegal border crossings in the area by 89 percent from 2006 to 2012, reports the New York Post.

First, LOL citing The Daily Caller and LOL the Daily Caller citing someone from the Center for Immigration Studies. (CIS gets debunked constantly by actual scholars and CIS was founded by a nativist who wants to reduce immigration to protect whites-- no seriously, you are making sol's argument for him).

The article in the Caller doesn't cite an exact "CRS" report, so I had to futz about all CRS reports with that language and here's what a 2009 report said below. And the Daily Caller quotes one small extract without noting any of the many qualifiers regarding the data. CRS is basically saying, yes the wall worked in one area because Border Patrol really upped the manpower in that one area and because the border crossers just moved over to Arizona. And even if we build the whole wall, it will need to be manned as intensively as in Operation Gatekeeper (mucho $$$) and the wall will likely be tunneled under (which will cause another whole round of increased manpower, money, and technology required).

[Page 11]The San Diego Fence and USBP ApprehensionsApprehension statistics have long been used as a performance measure by the USBP. However, the number of apprehensions may be a misleading statistic for several reasons, including the data’s focus on events rather than people and the fact that there are no reliable estimates for how many aliens successfully evade capture. This makes it difficult to establish a firm correlation between the number of apprehensions in a given sector and the number of people attempting to enter through that sector. While caution should be taken when attempting to draw conclusions about the efficacy of policy initiatives based solely on apprehensions statistics, they remain the most reliable way to codify trends in illegal migration along the border.

The San Diego fence spans two border patrol stations within the San Diego sector: Imperial Beach station and Chula Vista station. As previously noted, the primary fence was constructed in those two stations beginning in FY1990; the secondary fence was constructed beginning in FY1996. Figure 1 shows the stark decrease in apprehensions at the Imperial Beach station from FY1992 to FY2004. The majority of the decrease occurred in the four year period from FY1995 through FY1998 and coincided with Operation Gatekeeper, which as previously noted combined the construction of fencing along the border with an increase in agents and other resources deployed directly along the border.

[Page 26]EffectivenessProponents of border fences point to the substantial reduction in apprehensions along the San Diego sector as tangible proof that fences succeed in reducing cross-border smuggling and migration where they are constructed. Opponents attribute part of the decrease in apprehensions to the increase in manpower and resources in the sector and, pointing to the increase in apprehensions in less-populated sectors, contend that the fence only succeeds in rerouting unauthorized migration and not in stopping it. The USBP, for its part, states that border fencing is a force multiplier because it allows its agents to focus enforcement actions in other areas. The USBP has also stated that the fencing constructed in urban areas has helped reroute unauthorized migration to less populated areas where its agents have a tactical advantage over border crossers. As previously noted, the number of USBP apprehensions in 2004 were almost identical to the number of apprehensions in 1992; the main difference is that San Diego accounted for the majority of apprehensions in 1992, whereas in 2004 Tucson and Yuma sectors accounted for the majority of apprehensions.

A possible issue for Congress concerns the overall effectiveness of border fencing, especially if it is not constructed across the entire border in question. In the limited urban areas where border fencing has been constructed, it has typically reduced apprehensions. However, there is also strong indication that the fencing, combined with added enforcement, has re-routed illegal immigrants to other less fortified areas of the border. Additionally, in the limited areas where fencing has been erected, there have been numerous breaches of the border fencing and a number of tunnels discovered crossing underneath the fencing. It stands to reason that even if border fencing is constructed over a significant portion of the land border, the incidences of fence breaches and underground tunnels would increase. Possible policy options to address these issues could include mandating that border fencing be highly tamper-resistant or directing CBP to invest in tunnel-detection technologies.

[p. 33]

Another unintended consequence of the border fencing has been the proliferation of tunnels dug underneath the border. In San Diego, where the double-layer Sandia fencing has been constructed, smugglers have dug numerous tunnels underneath the border fence. One such tunnel was almost a kilometer long and was built from reinforced concrete—evidence of a rather sophisticated smuggling operation.

In sum, building a wall only works if we also add a significant amount of manpower to support the wall and people will likely breach it anyway. Which will lead to more $$$ and manpower being needed to be added...the money will never stop being spent. It will be a black hole of spending that never ends.

ETA: ...spending that never ends to keep out people who do essential work for us. And no credible source claims to know exactly how much or if illegal immigration costs the U.S. It does affect border states yes (I can cite RAND Corp reports), due to school costs, but some studies show that nationally the benefit is positive (due to taxes paid). So, the wall won't pay for itself because it won't work and the numbers being thrown around about the "costs" of illegal immigration are highly debatable.

If Congress really wanted to make illegal immigration go away, they'd make e-verify mandatory for employers of 500 employees in 2019, then 250 in 2020, then 100 in 2021, then 50, then 2.

It's all posturing.

Yup, we need to make it so that coming to the US illegally is undesirable. Then there would be no reason to come in the first place. That should also include strict deportation policies and the elimination of all tax payed benefits to those without a legal reason to be in the US. Then a wall would really be a stupid waste of money.

If Congress really wanted to make illegal immigration go away, they'd make e-verify mandatory for employers of 500 employees in 2019, then 250 in 2020, then 100 in 2021, then 50, then 2.

It's all posturing.

Don't be silly, that would drastically cut illegal immigration and cost far less than $5billion.

Trump doesn't actually want to reduce illegal immigration, because it's republican-owned business like farms and dairies that mostly depend on immigrant labor. Building a wall has nothing to do with securing the border, because it won't. As we've previously discussed, anyone can come to America on a tourist visa and cross legally, and then just overstay their visa. Physically getting into the USA is always going to be the easy part.

Building a wall won't secure the border, but it will be a big visible symbol of nativism and racial hatred. It will be a Statue of anti-Liberty, a giant art piece with a symbolic meaning that far outweighs its physical size. If Trump was serious about fixing illegal immigration, he would not be focused on the wall at all. But he's much more focused on appealing to the latent racism of his base supporters than he is on actually fixing this problem, hence the laserlike focus on a totally ineffective solution that makes racists stand up and cheer.

Wife took a job with the government in August so this is her first shutdown and being furloughed has been stressful for her.

She actually teared up a little the other night when she read an article that said that it could be down for 6 months or even a year.

She loves her job and has no idea what will happen if they stay shutdown that long.

We have an emergency fund but are trying not to touch it. We are trying to use all of the food in our house and making some pretty interesting meals LOL.

2 weeks into it now we have used all of our meat and are getting low on some food items so I emptied our change jug $162 in nickels, dimes and pennies $285 in dollar coins / quarters.

Everything other than the quarters and dollar coins went to coinstar and was exchanged for a Walmart gift card for no fee. The quarters and dollar coins will be used to buy other items as we need them.

So still have not touched the emergency fund and are living off one income, putting away $900 in my pre-tax 401k every 2 weeks.

If she gets back pay everything will still be on track for this year if not our savings will be reduced for the year.

Probably save the restaurant gift cards for trips that we have planned in Jan, Feb and March to keep the cost of the trips down.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

You should look into gift card exchanges for some of the non-food/household goods gift cards. You could turn some of them into more Walmart gift cards and use them for groceries. I have done that in the past with some iTunes/Apple gift cards and it has turned out well for me.

I have no claim on any insider knowledge of robust cost-benefit analysis data for 'The Wall', but I really wonder how many voters who think the wall is a great idea have actually spent any time in the open-desert borderlands? Not driven through a desert border crossing, but actually spent quality time working out in the open desert, in the mid-summer heat, dozens if not hundreds miles from anything but a scattering of human habitations? I have.

Personally, I've worked quite a bit in the desert near the border. Not on roads, not on established hiking trails, but out in the glorious expanse. I've actually met illegal groups trekking through on several occasions (including when I was working alone).

I have a close relative who was a border-patrol agent who actually patrolled the desert and busted illegals and incoming drugs (that person thinks the wall idea is absolutely moronic and a total waste of money and effort, even given the alternate technology that he had available to him back in the 1990s).

My DH currently works frequently in the border country in the open desert (different desert, different state), so I've gotten to see that area, as well.

The wall idea just seems ridiculous to me. Not only would you have to take away a bunch of ranchers' private property rights to build one, you'd have to disrupt and deface multiple national parks/monuments, disrupt local border town economies, put additional human pressure on fragile desert ecosystems, and (most importantly from my perspective) fuck up habitat, movements, and population gene-flow of vertebrate animals in the region. The ecosystem effects alone make such an idea a complete non-starter to me.

Then there's the fact that such a wall, once built, would require constant monitoring, manning, and upkeep, and I'm not convinced it would greatly reduce immigration. Hell, people still managed to get across the Berlin wall, despite it being 1) quite tall; 2) in a very restricted area that was heavily urbanized and thus easy to access, man, and repair; and 3) fortified with ~300 guard-towers with ARMED GUARDS WHO WOULD SHOOT TO KILL.

Also per my example of the Berlin wall, people understand how to tunnel under, breach, or climb over such walls (and have since medieval times). The Border Patrol already has lots of remote technologies in use to monitor the border. Back in the 1990s they already had advanced night vision that could see people moving miles away and remote monitors that could detect people walking in the open desert. One can only imagine the technology at their disposal NOW. I find it hard to believe a wall could efficiently secure the border anywhere except high-traffic areas near major border crossings (e.g., San Diego has one).

GIVEN THAT WE CANNOT STOP ALL ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, I definitely want the border as secure as is REASONABLE. In other words, I want cost-effective security and a reasonable trade-off between reducing illegal flow of people and impact on natural resources.

If building some segments of wall in high traffic areas is a cost effective solution, that seems reasonable to me; but that sure doesn't seem to match the ridiculous nonsense Trump and his supporters keep spouting.

Related to the shutdown: a national conference of student veterans in FL was looking at empty job recruitment booths from federal departments because no one was there to represent the Fed gov't. Luckily a bunch of private companies like Microsoft were in attendance.

Although I understand and fully sympathize with federal workers caught in this mess, I like to hear about personal stories like this of citizens who are now being affected.

I work at a university, and I have a grant due in about two weeks. Luckily the submission website is still up, but it is not being supported. Hope there aren't any technical difficulties...

While my grant deadline is still in place, the shutdown means no processing or reviewing can happen until it's over. Not only is no one able to work to coordinate this, but the amount of funding available is totally up in the air unless appropriations come through. Depending on how long this goes and what the final budget looks like, my grant cycle could get significantly delayed or even canceled.

It's hard enough to get funding for this equipment I need to do my job the best I can. This just adds an extra level of stress/uncertainty to what is already a stressful and cutthroat process.

I am, however, very grateful that my paycheck is not dependent on the grant

I was told in 2013 the agency pushed back deadlines, but it sounds like this time we're still required to submit on time, just no option to call up program officers with questions, no help with the website goes down, etc.

So we were out buying supplies to make chicken soup and other grocery items and getting pretty hungry and decided to stop in a sub shop on our way home and split a sandwich.

Wife ordered and paid in quarters and while explaining / apologizing for paying in quarters the manager said he understands and that he used to work as a fire fighter for the government and understands and offered her a job starting tomorrow.

She explained that she would not be able to give him a proper notice and would have to leave when the government started back up.

Again he said no problem and that he would just be happy to have someone that would show up on time even if for a few days.

The kindness of the manager boosted her spirits and she was pretty excited to have something new to do so today turned out to be a good day.

While it does not pay much it will take her mind off the shutdown and lift her spirits to have a place to go during the day.

Manager would probably have a good laugh looking at her resume listing all of her patents, inventions and publications :)

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I am way too tired of politics to reply to any other posts in this thread, but this story put a smile on my face :)

I hope your wife enjoys her short stint as a restaurant worker and will get back pay eventually. This is a true example of mustachianism: when life gives you lemons, make lemonade. The owner is happy to have a reliable worker, your wife will be keeping busy and earning money, and hopefully she'll enjoy her new job while it lasts.

So we were out buying supplies to make chicken soup and other grocery items and getting pretty hungry and decided to stop in a sub shop on our way home and split a sandwich.

Wife ordered and paid in quarters and while explaining / apologizing for paying in quarters the manager said he understands and that he used to work as a fire fighter for the government and understands and offered her a job starting tomorrow.

She explained that she would not be able to give him a proper notice and would have to leave when the government started back up.

Again he said no problem and that he would just be happy to have someone that would show up on time even if for a few days.

The kindness of the manager boosted her spirits and she was pretty excited to have something new to do so today turned out to be a good day.

While it does not pay much it will take her mind off the shutdown and lift her spirits to have a place to go during the day.

Manager would probably have a good laugh looking at her resume listing all of her patents, inventions and publications :)

Is this going to delay processing of everyone's tax information and returns?

Short answer yes.

Long answer. Tax refunds may be delayed or they may not be issued at all until the government reopens. I've read different things from different sources and you cannot ask the IRS because 90% of them, including everyone devoting to asking questions is gone.

Note that we're also filing under a significantly revised tax code for the first time this year, and even in a normal year IRS help lines are bombarded with questions from January through April.

I have no claim on any insider knowledge of robust cost-benefit analysis data for 'The Wall', but I really wonder how many voters who think the wall is a great idea have actually spent any time in the open-desert borderlands? Not driven through a desert border crossing, but actually spent quality time working out in the open desert, in the mid-summer heat, dozens if not hundreds miles from anything but a scattering of human habitations? I have.

Personally, I've worked quite a bit in the desert near the border. Not on roads, not on established hiking trails, but out in the glorious expanse. I've actually met illegal groups trekking through on several occasions (including when I was working alone).

I have a close relative who was a border-patrol agent who actually patrolled the desert and busted illegals and incoming drugs (that person thinks the wall idea is absolutely moronic and a total waste of money and effort, even given the alternate technology that he had available to him back in the 1990s).

My DH currently works frequently in the border country in the open desert (different desert, different state), so I've gotten to see that area, as well.

The wall idea just seems ridiculous to me. Not only would you have to take away a bunch of ranchers' private property rights to build one, you'd have to disrupt and deface multiple national parks/monuments, disrupt local border town economies, put additional human pressure on fragile desert ecosystems, and (most importantly from my perspective) fuck up habitat, movements, and population gene-flow of vertebrate animals in the region. The ecosystem effects alone make such an idea a complete non-starter to me.

Then there's the fact that such a wall, once built, would require constant monitoring, manning, and upkeep, and I'm not convinced it would greatly reduce immigration. Hell, people still managed to get across the Berlin wall, despite it being 1) quite tall; 2) in a very restricted area that was heavily urbanized and thus easy to access, man, and repair; and 3) fortified with ~300 guard-towers with ARMED GUARDS WHO WOULD SHOOT TO KILL.

Also per my example of the Berlin wall, people understand how to tunnel under, breach, or climb over such walls (and have since medieval times). The Border Patrol already has lots of remote technologies in use to monitor the border. Back in the 1990s they already had advanced night vision that could see people moving miles away and remote monitors that could detect people walking in the open desert. One can only imagine the technology at their disposal NOW. I find it hard to believe a wall could efficiently secure the border anywhere except high-traffic areas near major border crossings (e.g., San Diego has one).

GIVEN THAT WE CANNOT STOP ALL ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, I definitely want the border as secure as is REASONABLE. In other words, I want cost-effective security and a reasonable trade-off between reducing illegal flow of people and impact on natural resources.

If building some segments of wall in high traffic areas is a cost effective solution, that seems reasonable to me; but that sure doesn't seem to match the ridiculous nonsense Trump and his supporters keep spouting.

(You do know that a wall is totally ineffective at slowing illegal immigration, right?)

I know that you "think" that or are trying to get us to "believe that you think" that because you actually support open borders like so many on the left do because it ultimately leads to more votes. However, if you understood the issue, you couldn't say that with a straight face, just like the head of border security stated. Even liberal politicians like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton have supported it. You're not suggesting they are xenophobic racists are you?

My support of the wall predates the election of Trump. This is something I've followed closely even before Obama was president. I'm not a Trump supporter and oppose him on the ACA, for example. I'm a free thinker and come to my own conclusions based on facts, not what a single party or the media tells me to think like so many others do.

I um, may or may not have a relative who has a job that has required spending time working with border patrol agents at the border. There's already a wall.It doesn't really work. I mean, it sometimes works. Sort of works. But the majority of illegal immigration doesn't come from people climbing walls (which they do all the time, in addition to tunneling under it). It mostly comes from people overstaying their visas. No cost-benefit analysis worth its salt will say the border wall is worth it.

Then the question becomes, who are you trying to keep out? Because yeah, the wall may dissuade some poor farmers from crossing over with their kids, but it does less than zero to dissuade the criminals and drug runners.

Lost in all the talk of federal employees having their pay delayed (e.g. inconvenient but paid vacation) is that many, even probably most of the people affected are not federal employees but rather contractors who will never see a penny in back pay or compensation.

Lost in all the talk of federal employees having their pay delayed (e.g. inconvenient but paid vacation) is that many, even probably most of the people affected are not federal employees but rather contractors who will never see a penny in back pay or compensation.

That's the cost of not being an employee, you can generally command higher income but have no job security. Sucks to be in that position for sure, but this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

If Congress really wanted to make illegal immigration go away, they'd make e-verify mandatory for employers of 500 employees in 2019, then 250 in 2020, then 100 in 2021, then 50, then 2.

It's all posturing.

Don't be silly, that would drastically cut illegal immigration and cost far less than $5billion.

Trump doesn't actually want to reduce illegal immigration, because it's republican-owned business like farms and dairies that mostly depend on immigrant labor. Building a wall has nothing to do with securing the border, because it won't. As we've previously discussed, anyone can come to America on a tourist visa and cross legally, and then just overstay their visa. Physically getting into the USA is always going to be the easy part.

Building a wall won't secure the border, but it will be a big visible symbol of nativism and racial hatred. It will be a Statue of anti-Liberty, a giant art piece with a symbolic meaning that far outweighs its physical size. If Trump was serious about fixing illegal immigration, he would not be focused on the wall at all. But he's much more focused on appealing to the latent racism of his base supporters than he is on actually fixing this problem, hence the laserlike focus on a totally ineffective solution that makes racists stand up and cheer.

If the government wanted to get rid of illegal aliens, it would make them unemployable. But the laws governing I-9s make it clear that they don't want to get rid of illegal aliens, just use them for propaganda. Wall advocates always talk about stopping the "supply" at the border (with one of the least effective tools in the box--a wall) instead of the "demand" within our borders. Why?

The "wall" is a propaganda tool. It would be no more effective than the Maginot Line in accomplishing its stated purpose. It is like ordering a diet coke for lunch ... with 4 Big Macs. It would be cheaper to order a water, and more effective to cut back on the grub (unless your purpose is to post an instagram photo of the diet coke and with the message: "Fat people: If I can do it, why can't you?")

The irony is that we have historic low unemployment levels and we have always relied upon immigrants (including many immigrants who are here illegally) to keep our economy going.

Wall advocates always talk about stopping the "supply" at the border (with one of the least effective tools in the box--a wall) instead of the "demand" within our borders. Why?

You obviously didn't read my post to know that you are wrong on that assumption. It is a common false talking point that the left uses as if a border wall means you would do away with other illegal immigration enforcement methods. As I just linked to, I've mentioned e-verify in the past, plus I even linked to an article state other methods of enforcement, which includes e-verify, earlier in this thread. Here it is again:

As extremely effective as a border wall has been shown to be, it alone isn't the solution. There must be an multi-faceted approach that includes the wall. But the cost of the wall and these other mechanisms of enforcement are peanuts compared to the high cost of illegal immigration:

You mean because the government pensions are bailed out by tax hikes on workers, most who are not government workers themselves. The private industry can't take more of my tax dollars to pay their retirees the way the government does.

What has a $3.5 trillion unfunded liability, manually calculated on paper inside a Pennsylvania mountain, and costs taxpayers more money annually than the entire state budget of Florida? Answer: Federal employee pensions.

We should be cutting taxes for really rich people and cutting pensions of some middle class fed employees.

I'm not angry, but the pensions for federal workers under the older overly generous over-promised pension system should be cut along with some of the other governent fat. More recent hires don't get as sweet of a deal. I'm all for fairness about where my tax dollars are going. Don't cry too much about the rich people getting tax cuts - they are still paying FAR more tax dollars than you ever will.

You mean because the government pensions are bailed out by tax hikes on workers, most who are not government workers themselves. The private industry can't take more of my tax dollars to pay their retirees the way the government does.

What has a $3.5 trillion unfunded liability, manually calculated on paper inside a Pennsylvania mountain, and costs taxpayers more money annually than the entire state budget of Florida? Answer: Federal employee pensions.

yep, really rich people got huge tax cuts and you're moaning about middle class pensions. Your anger is definitely targeting the right group. We should be cutting taxes for really rich people and cutting pensions of some middle class fed employees. The rich need it more.

Just curious, but why do you think cutting pensions for fed employees will result in tax cuts for the rich. Is it possible to reduce the cost of both liberal and conservative spending so that we can eliminate the deficit and start to decrease our debt?

There are two things that scare me about the US today. The rising cost of healthcare and the national debt to GDP ratio. Personally I'm all for cutting down government spending on military, foreign aid, aid to illegal residents, cleaning up disability and medicaid for the people who actually need it, illuminate the war on drugs, free all incarcerated non violent drug offenders, etc.... All for the hope of decreasing our national debt.

If this so called wall decreases illegal immigration a few percent, and even more so with legitimate immigration reform. I guess it would pay for itself in the long run by decreasing spending elsewhere. If this is really true I am definitely for this wall, and not because I am racist, but because I am against illegal immigration and all unproductive wasteful spending. If this wall does nothing then I agree no need for the wall. I personally am still not sold on a benefit of a wall vs a large chain fence like the one built on 2011.

Racism has EVERYTHING to do with the wall. It's the only reason the whole idea of the wall exists. I too want to secure our southern border, but a wall is a stupidly ineffective way to do that. The only utility in a wall is as a counterpoint to the Statue of Liberty, as an art piece that says "America hates immigrants". It won't actually do anything. It's a waste of money. It's only popular among people who fear the invading hordes of brown people will somehow harm our country, instead of help it like they always have.

@sol, an American citizen can want something you don't and not be a racist xenophobe. I know it is hard to believe, but it is really true. You would be surprised how many Americans of Mexican decent believe a wall is a good idea. Are they racist as well?

It's sol's standard MO as well as many people on the left. If they don't have a valid argument to debate an issue, they just resort to name calling, or even start with that. I explained to him earlier in the thread that the wall has nothing to do with racism, it's about effective border security along with the other enforcement methods I linked to.

.... Why is the focus on the southern border and not oceans, visas etc?

Right on, it should all be looked at and taken into consideration.

Yes, the focus isn't on just the wall. The solutions article I linked to earlier mentioned other ways deal with illegal immigration. The left likes to cloud the issue saying that the wall won't solve this, or it won't solve that, but the wall is just one important piece of the pie.

For one, the U.S. is hemorrhaging money — at least $116 billion annually — because of the high cost of illegal immigration. Any money spent on a border wall is well invested and will pay for itself ten-fold down the road in costs to state and local governments.